|
Post by missy on Feb 24, 2009 10:26:09 GMT -6
Somehow this does not seem so hard to me. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder. If you take a life it is killing, if you do so illegally then it is murder. Execution is killing but it is not murder. A soldier killing in war is not usually murder, even though it can be in some circumstances. I will agree with that D.E.E. Well said
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 11:37:07 GMT -6
If she can see them can't she yell "get off the tracks". Also, don't most trains blow a whistle and hopefully the people would look and see the train coming and get off.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 24, 2009 11:42:51 GMT -6
If she can see them can't she yell "get off the tracks". Also, don't most trains blow a whistle and hopefully the people would look and see the train coming and get off. My theory is that its a suicide cult and they want to die. Only complete idiots play on train tracks without paying attention to oncoming trains
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 11:50:16 GMT -6
If she can see them can't she yell "get off the tracks". Also, don't most trains blow a whistle and hopefully the people would look and see the train coming and get off. My theory is that its a suicide cult and they want to die. Only complete idiots play on train tracks without paying attention to oncoming trains My theory is that it's a what if story to try to entrap pros and to get them fighting among themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Feb 24, 2009 14:37:48 GMT -6
My theory is that its a suicide cult and they want to die. Only complete idiots play on train tracks without paying attention to oncoming trains My theory is that it's a what if story to try to entrap pros and to get them fighting among themselves. Well, Nils did not make this scenario up. When I was an undergrad, we spent almost a whole class talking about this scenario in a philosophy class.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 14:49:12 GMT -6
My theory is that it's a what if story to try to entrap pros and to get them fighting among themselves. Well, Nils did not make this scenario up. When I was an undergrad, we spent almost a whole class talking about this scenario in a philosophy class. Okay, sorry Nils. Well what decision did Jane make?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 14:56:19 GMT -6
Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. So, returning the favour: would you in either scenario take the life of the individual over the five, if the individual concerned was a convicted murderer, and the five were innocents? Oh you're so good. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Feb 24, 2009 15:04:18 GMT -6
Well, Nils did not make this scenario up. When I was an undergrad, we spent almost a whole class talking about this scenario in a philosophy class. Well what decision did Jane make? That is the point of the question. In this hypo, you are Jane, so you get to decide. For what it is worth, I think it is a fair and for some a difficult question. The question transcends the railroad scenario. Essentially, the question presupposes that you know nothing about the people at risk, and then asks whether you would sacrifice the life of one to save the lives of the many. There are multiple ways to approach such a dilemma, and it can be an engaging question.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 15:08:40 GMT -6
I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Learned what exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2009 15:26:09 GMT -6
I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Learned what exactly? The only thing he learned from his conviction is to use more chains next time he tries to get rid of a body. Given the chance petterson would kill again if he would benefit from it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Which would explain allot of things.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 24, 2009 15:42:21 GMT -6
So, returning the favour: would you in either scenario take the life of the individual over the five, if the individual concerned was a convicted murderer, and the five were innocents? Oh you're so good. ;D Thanks Stormy, still waiting on that answer Nils.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 25, 2009 0:23:32 GMT -6
well, this is a thought experiment, and it reveals something about our moral values. In one instance most of us will sacrifice the one to save the five, in the other we will not. why is that? nils As I said, there are many reasons why, one of which I've posted above. When there is nothing riding on an outcome most people will chose the answer which puts them in the best light; in this case answer one. Remember people know when they are filling these things out that one answer is preferred over another - that one answer is the one that the investigators are really after. People like to please, especially when there is nothing personally riding on the result. The other flaw, as mentioned, is that the above situation deals with actors of equal value - again a situation that tells us little about how an individual values human life in practical terms. This sort of exercise has been used to 'prove' that people are more likely to perform difficult or unpleasant acts if there is an automated 'other' involved - a medium that acts as a buffer between the action and the result. In this case the 'switch'; a metaphor that has been likened to the 'state'. ie. if the State does the killing for us we are more likely to condone killing than if we were directly involved. (Extended to an argument against the death penalty of course) The problem with transforming the dilemma into a practical situation is that the actors are never equal in real life. In real life judgments are made about value or worth. For example, put 5 children on those tracks and I assure you people will say 'yes' both times. (telling us nothing other than that adults greatly value children, hardly an earth shattering comment on universal social morality) So, while this exercise may tell us something about how we value human life as individuals, and that's a big perhaps, it is a big leap to use such to prove social trends. Which is, unfortunately, just how these things have been used. Hi. The point, Gman, with the investigation is not to find out how we will act in a real-life situation, but rather to investigate into the moral values that guide us. To find out how we will handle a real life situation would a require a whole different experiment. What is inter sting though is that in example a) most of us will pick the alternative that saves the five and kills the one, in alternative b) most of us will hesitate killing the one, thereby killing the five. Why is that one might wonder, that pulling the switch is okay and the right thing to do, while pushing the guy is not okay. The end result is the same, one innocent is killed, five innocents are spared, yet, we answer yes in example a) and no in example b).Since the overwhelming majority, regardless of cultural background, apparently make the same choices it may suggests that these moral values are rather deeply rooted indeed. Take care Nils
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 25, 2009 0:31:07 GMT -6
I'd just sit back and see what happened without intervening. Then, I'd use my cell phone to call the cops and tell them to come out and clean up the mess. Then coffee, and perhaps a donut.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 25, 2009 0:50:51 GMT -6
Some one told me the 5 were all in Calais trying to jump a train to get into Blighty so they could sponge off our welfare state. Hope the bloody train doesn't blow a whistle or anyone shouts get off the track. Bloody Foreigners
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 25, 2009 1:48:12 GMT -6
Kia ora, eh bro. No, that's not quite right. As you say these things are designed to investigate those 'moral values that guide us' ... guide what exactly? Guide how we as individuals react to ethical problems common (and uncommon) to everyday life, surely? But, and this is more important, such studies are very much used to 'prove' how people will act in real life, therefore my comments are valid. Well, I have offered a reason 'why', and that 'why' does not necessarily mean anything significant. As I've said several times I find the exercise an interesting one, however, it is the inevitable extrapolation that I have a problem with. Either it is a pure exercise in fictional morality, or it is a real indicator (guide) of actually held moral belief. You can't have it both ways. E noho rā. (... and still waiting on your answer to my dilemma)
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 25, 2009 6:36:37 GMT -6
Nils, thr truth is no one knows how they will react in certain circumstances. You can have all the experiments in the world and you will learn nothing because until you actually been in and survuved a particular set of events that have tested you to the extreme you will never know. Everyone acts differently.
their is a book out by a guy called Laurence Ress, its called "Their Darkest Hour, People tested to the extreme in WW11" that was a great book which deals with your moral dilemma. read it. Its very interesting. He talks to US Bomber crews, Nazi Camp guards, Russian female soldeirs, Ukrainian police, Japanese soldiers and suicide pilots, British guardsmens. It deals with their actions, why they did what they did and how they overcame them during and after the conflict. Its a very good book.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 25, 2009 7:07:40 GMT -6
Sorry Nils, thats Laurence Rees, not Ress. Seriously, read that book, its an amazing read.
|
|